Civil Debt (Procedures) Bill 2015: Second Stage

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Frances Fitzgerald)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am very pleased to introduce these new measures to the House today and I look forward to hearing the contributions of Deputies. Importantly, the Civil Debt (Procedures) Bill provides for the abolition of imprisonment of debtors and fulfils a commitment made in the programme for Government in this regard. The purpose of the Bill is to provide for the introduction of additional measures to the existing suite of measures currently available for the enforcement of debts. These new court-based options will provide for the enforcement of debt, within specified upper and lower limits, by means of attachment of earnings or deductions from certain social welfare payments where the debtor has the capacity to repay the moneys owed. Consumer debts owed to financial institutions or licensed moneylenders and arising from loans are excluded from the scope of the Bill.

As Deputies will note, the Bill does not apply to recovery by financial institutions of debts arising from money lent to customers. It applies to creditors such as small or sole traders, sub-contractors and other small businesses that have supplied goods and services and provides them with new avenues to get paid what is owed to them by those who can afford to pay. Equally, it applies to debts that fall within the lower and upper limits, respectively, of €500 to €4,000. Subject to a number of important safeguards, which I will outline shortly, it will enhance our legal system for the recovery of debts.

The provisions in the Bill arise from the recommendations made by the Law Reform Commission in its 2010 report entitled Personal Debt Management and Debt Enforcement. That report made a number of recommendations for reform of the existing personal insolvency and debt enforcement regimes. Key elements of the report were implemented through the enactment of the Personal Insolvency Act 2012.

Deputies will be aware that much of the focus of the reforms implemented to date in the area of civil debt has been centred on personal insolvency and those who cannot pay. However, the LRC report also identified the need to reform the existing debt enforcement regime to ensure balance in the creditor-debtor dynamic and recommended the introduction of a number of reforms specifically aimed at improving the current range of court-based options available to creditors in recovering moneys owed to them. These reforms are aimed at debtors who have capacity to pay their debts but fail to do so - the "won't pay" debtors. This would include Irish Water charges and the charges of energy and telecommunications companies. Measures specific to compliance with Irish Water charges and provisions for eligibility and payment of the water conservation grant after 2015 have been addressed separately, as Deputies are aware, by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government in the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2015.

As I have said on previous occasions, the most desirable outcome is for creditors and debtors to reach an amicable agreement for the settlement of debt. However, in some cases the debtor, who may actually be in a position to pay the debt, simply refuses to engage with the creditor or does not adhere to the agreed repayment schedule to satisfy an outstanding debt. The creditor has little option in such circumstances but to take legal action to seek repayment of the debt.

Many Members of this House will recognise that scenario and will be acutely aware of circumstances across the country where small suppliers of goods and services - often small or sole traders and other small businesses - simply cannot get paid by individuals whom they have supplied even in circumstances where there is little or no doubt but that they can afford to pay. The Bill gives those creditors, in addition to others where the debts are modest ones between €500 and €4,000, two new court-based options in addition to the suite of options already available to secure payment of a debt.

At present, the position is that once a creditor has obtained a judgment order from the court, the judgment can be enforced. The creditor has 12 years from the date of the judgment to look for an enforcement order. However, if the judgment order was issued six or more years earlier, the creditor may have to apply to court for leave to issue execution. Once issued, enforcement orders are generally valid for a year and may then be renewed.

The main ways of enforcing judgments for civil debt are by registration of the judgment first, followed by execution against goods, garnishee order, instalment order or judgment mortgage. For smaller debts instalment orders or execution against goods are the most common methods of enforcement.

Along with the economic reality of serious indebtedness and the need to provide for legislative options for those who are insolvent and bankrupt, it is equally an economic reality that creditors must have options available to them to recover money owed to them, particularly where the debtor has the capacity to repay and will not do so. Those who provide goods and services are entitled to seek repayment from their customers. If this were not the case, businesses would simply not survive. Indeed, many small businesses will have failed because they have not been able to collect money owed to them. However, I am mindful that in introducing new measures in regard to the enforcement of debt, there is a need to protect vulnerable debtors from the aggressive actions of certain creditors. The Civil Debt (Procedures) Bill provides for a number of important safeguards which will ensure that debtors are given adequate protections in this regard. It is important that I outline to the House the safeguards in the Bill.

First, the debtor will be offered an opportunity to make representations to the court on his or her behalf before the court may make a decision on the matter. Second, and importantly, in making a decision the court will be required to take into account the debtor's capacity to repay the debt in terms of the amount of the attachment or deduction that would be ordered. The proposals provide that the debtor's circumstances must be assessed by the court deciding on enforceability so the attachment of earnings or deduction from social welfare cannot cause him or her undue hardship or encroach on basic income sustainability to ensure basic living costs can still be met by the debtor. The debtor will be obliged to provide a statement of means to the court which will then be examined by the court in assessing his or her capacity to pay. Where the debtor is not an employee but is on social welfare payments, this statement of means will have attached to it a verification statement from the Department of Social Protection setting out exactly what payments are being made to the debtor and the deductions, if any, already being made from them. The court will be thus in a position to make a fully informed assessment of what the debtor can or cannot afford to pay.

Third, provision is made for variation or termination of the order if the debtor's circumstances change materially.

It is another very important provision. Finally, the court may adjourn proceedings for such period or periods as the court thinks reasonable if it appears to the court that the judgment debtor is likely to be able to pay the debt within a reasonable period.

I have a number of comments on the provisions of the Bill which allow the court to order appropriate deductions from payments to a social welfare recipient in satisfaction of a debt. Affordability is absolutely critical here and will be judged by the court on the basis of accurate information provided to it by the Department of Social Protection. Deductions may be ordered only from net scheme payments. These are payments which are prescribed by the Minister for Social Protection as being suitable for deductions on the basis of their being stable payments to long-term recipients and taking into account any deductions which are already being made. Deductions may be also ordered only from a recipient's personal rate, which is the portion of the person's social welfare payment which does not include payments or elements of payments which might relate to dependants. The Minister for Social Protection will be in a position to designate those benefits to which a deduction order may be applied and it is expected that these would be broadly similar to those from which deductions in respect of local property tax may be deducted at present. It may be that in assessing affordability a court will be in a position to order only very small deductions from the payments of social welfare recipients or indeed in some cases none at all. As I have illustrated, there is a strong set of safeguards in place to ensure balance and fairness in these situations.

Before I move on to the content of the Bill itself, I briefly mention some of the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission, or LRC, which have influenced the development of the policy in relation to the Civil Debt (Procedures) Bill. The relevant LRC report acknowledged the need for creditors to recover their debts, particularly where the debtor has capacity to repay but refuses to engage meaningfully with the creditor. The report also made a number of recommendations for wide-scale reform of the current debt enforcement regime, including the setting up of a debt enforcement office. The Civil Debt (Procedures) Bill does not propose to implement this particular recommendation, rather it focuses on improving the existing court-based enforcement measures. During the LRC consultation process conducted prior to the publication of the report, it was noted that there is general dissatisfaction in relation to the operation of the instalment order procedure, both from the point of view of debtors and creditors. The LRC acknowledged that while the most serious deficiencies in the procedure were remedied by the Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Act 2009, which was introduced on foot of the High Court judgment in McCann v. Judge of Monaghan District Court and Others, some difficulties remained to be addressed and other mechanisms introduced to the existing debt enforcement regime.

Debt enforcement by means of attachment of earnings orders was examined by the LRC and its report noted that in Ireland attachment of earnings orders are mainly used in the enforcement of judgments except in the context of family law where they are used by enforcing court rulings. The LRC received a number of submissions on the subject during the consultation process. The majority of respondents supported the introduction of an attachment of earnings order mechanism. It was noted that future income is often the single most reliable source of funds to satisfy proven debts, particularly in the case of consumer debtors. Potential efficiency was also cited as an argument for the introduction of such a mechanism. As part of the consultation process, the LRC sought views on this issue and found that the introduction of such a measure was widely supported. The LRC also noted that this method is used to enforce judgment debts in a large majority of the systems surveyed in other jurisdictions.

The LRC also looked at the possibility of making deductions from social welfare payments as a means of debt enforcement but was of the view that this was a policy matter which lay outside the scope of its review. However, the LRC identified a number of principles which it considered to be important in the development of any policy in this area. I have addressed some of these issues by highlighting the protections in the Bill. According to the LRC, the principle of enforcement should be appropriate and proportionate in all cases; decisions on the enforcement of a judgment must be based on an accurate and comprehensive assessment of the debtor's capacity to repay the money owed; and, while the creditor's right to have judgment debts satisfied must be vindicated and respected, there should be safeguards to ensure that the debtor's standard of living is not reduced below a basic level. These principles have been taken well into account in the development of the Bill and I will deal with them in more detail in a few moments.

One of the key recommendations of the LRC in this area is the abolition of imprisonment of debtors. Under existing law, arrest and imprisonment remains a possibility as an enforcement mechanism of last resort, which is clearly not appropriate at this time, in cases where a creditor has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the judgment debtor has failed to comply with an instalment order due to his or her wilful refusal or culpable neglect. There have long been calls for the legislation provided for in the Bill so that we do not imprison people in these circumstances. At a policy level and within legislation, the Bill does away with the concept of imprisonment for debtors in this situation. The LRC noted that the role of imprisonment in the system for the enforcement of judgments has been considerably curtailed following a change to the law in 2009 arising from the High Court decision in the McCann case. Recourse to imprisonment may now only be had after all other less restrictive enforcement mechanisms have been attempted or found to be inappropriate. However, before the implementation of the Bill, the possibility of imprisonment for nonpayment of debt still remains. The LRC also noted that the removal of imprisonment for failure to comply with a judgment debt in ordinary civil proceedings could be without prejudice to the retention of imprisonment in other scenarios such as the enforcement of family maintenance orders.

Due to the extensive consultation process conducted by the LRC and the fact that its report entitled Personal Debt Management and Debt Enforcement has been in the public domain for almost five years and its content well known, I have not asked for pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. Before turning to outline in more detail the provisions of this Bill, I remind Deputies that what the Government is proposing here is straightforward legislation built from long-standing analysis and recommendations of the LRC to provide two key enhancements for suppliers of goods and services to recover modest debts in the courts. While it will be open to be used by utilities such as energy or telecoms providers or, indeed, Irish Water, it will also be available for use by small businesses and traders around Ireland. It will not be directed at those who cannot pay but rather at those who can pay but choose not to. It will not be directed at anyone unless the court decides that it is within that person's capacity to pay. The Civil Debt (Procedures) Bill seeks to implement further recommendations of the LRC report aimed at enforcement and recovery of debts which could be developed to streamline existing enforcement procedures. The Bill provides that creditors, having first sought a judgment in respect of the debt, may apply to the court for an order enabling either attachment of earnings or deductions from social welfare payments, as appropriate, for the purpose of enforcement of debts to which the legislation will apply. Attachment of earnings would arise where a court orders the debtor's employer to deduct specified sums from the debtor's earnings to pay over to the creditor. Deduction from social welfare payments would arise where the court orders the Department of Social Protection to deduct specified sums from the debtor's social welfare payments to pay over to the creditor. However, these provisions are subject to a number of safeguards for debtors, which I have already outlined in detail, and the court will be required to have regard to the debtor's capacity to repay the amount owed. The debtor will be offered an opportunity to make representations to the court and will have his or her capacity to repay taken into account.

I will now outline the contents of the Bill. Section 1 provides for the definitions used in the Bill. Among the terms defined is "net scheme payments" which is required for the purposes of dealing with deductions from certain social welfare payments.

"Debt" is defined as not including debts arising from the repayment of loans to a debtor made by a bank, credit union, moneylender or credit card debt. The reason for this exclusion is that such debts are based on a loan where credit has been extended to a debtor and risk has been factored into the interest charged on the loan. I am mindful that banks and other financial entities already have a range of mechanisms for recovering unpaid loans. However, it is important to point out that the exclusion in this Bill does not apply to the other enforcement mechanisms already available, nor would it preclude an application under the provisions of this Bill related to non-lending related activity.

Sections 2, 3 and 5 are standard provisions. Section 4 deals with the fact that this legislation will be dealt with within the District Court. Section 6 provides that a creditor, having first obtained a judgment against a debtor in respect of a debt, may make the application needed to the court for the attachment of earnings order or a deduction where a debt is not less than €500 but no greater than €4,000. The requirements relating to the information to be provided to the court by the judgment debtor on his or her financial circumstances are set out in section 7. I have already given quite a bit of detail about that section and the role of the employer or Department, as well as the need for absolutely accurate information in the debtor position being provided to the court. All the mechanisms are there to ensure the decision is made on the basis of accurate information.

I have touched on section 8 as well, which allows for the adjournment of the court proceedings for such period or periods as the court believes reasonable if it appears to the court that the judgment debtor is likely to be able to pay the debt within a reasonable period. If the person who owes the money is making a case, they can put that to the court, which has the option of an adjournment. Section 9 provides that an attachment of earnings order and a deduction from social welfare payments order cannot be in effect concurrently in respect of the same judgment debt. In section 10 we make it clear that the court can make an order directing the employer of the judgment debtor to make deductions from the debtor's earnings and to pay the sums deducted to the creditor in accordance with the terms of the court order. The section also provides that the court can give the judgment debtor an opportunity to make representations. In addition, it provides that in specifying the amount of deductions to be made, the court shall have regard to the "normal deduction rate", which is the rate which the court considers reasonable that the earnings to which the order should be applied in satisfying the debt and the "protected earnings rate", which is the rate below which the debtor's earnings should not be reduced, having regard to the needs of the judgment debtor and his or her particular circumstances. The court shall not make an attachment of earnings order unless it is satisfied that the judgment debtor is a person to whom earnings fall to be paid and that regard has been given to his or her particular circumstances, including financial circumstances.

Section 11 deals with attachment of earnings and section 12 deals with compliance with an attachment order. Section 13 deals with the details of the notification to the employer. Section 14 empowers the court, on application by the employer concerned, the judgment debtor or the judgment creditor to rule on whether certain types of payments are earnings for the purpose of an attachment of earnings order in force. That gives the kind of flexibility that would be needed where somebody would want to make a case on earnings and payments that should be taken into account. The provisions which are to apply in relation to debtors who are in the service of the State or local authorities are set out in section 15. Section 16 deals with the arrangements that apply for deductions from social welfare payments and the details applying to the Minister for Social Protection. The scope of the payments that come within the Bill will be decided by the Minister for Social Protection. The method of service of the deduction from payments orders from a Minister are set out in section 17.

Section 18 deals with compliance with a deduction from payments order and describes how it would be implemented. Section 20 allows the court to vary an attachment of earnings order or a deduction from payments order, and I have already spoken about that. Section 21 goes into more detail about the attachment of earnings. Section 24 provides for a number of penalties in respect of false or misleading statements and section 25 provides for the repeals of Parts I and IV of the Debtors Act (Ireland) 1872. These repeals effectively remove the sanction of imprisonment of debtors from the Statute Book. I should mention here that I will be introducing amendments on Committee Stage that seek to amend the imprisonment provisions of the Enforcement of Court Orders Acts. Section 27 is a standard provision regarding the commencement of the Act.

I am sure that Deputies will agree that there is a need for a balanced approach to civil debt to ensure the protection of creditor rights by making available a range of legal mechanisms that compel payment by "won't pay" debtors who knowingly refuse to pay their obligations. Therefore it is important that any legislative initiatives in this area should support and protect those who simply cannot pay their debts while dealing appropriately with those who have capacity to pay but simply refuse to do so. The Civil Debt (Procedures) Bill provides that balance in the enforcement of debts owed to providers of goods and services through attachment of earnings or deductions from social welfare payments and I look forward to the Deputies' comments on the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.

Deputy Niall Collins

Fianna Fáil opposes this debt enforcement bill. We believe this Bill forms part of the new legislative measures that the Government has been forced to introduce to shore up Irish Water and convince European officials of the financial viability of that company. For the first time, the Bill will allow attachment orders being made against social welfare payments and regular earnings for Irish Water bills and other outstanding debts. We know that currently, Irish Water will not release statistics on the number of households that have not paid their Irish Water bills. It is estimated that more than 400,000 people are still refusing to pay their water charges. This legislation could herald the beginning of an unprecedented number of households being brought before the District Court to enforce payment of Irish Water bills, with the potential to clog up the court lists and create further social unrest.

It is clear that the establishment of the Irish Water super-quango has been a complete debacle. It has already lost the support and confidence of the Irish public. The Government will struggle to raise the net €140 million in new charges and it will not invest an extra cent in infrastructure. There has been €540 million wasted on water meters that will not be used and €172 million has been spent establishing a bloated quango. The accountancy trick of taking Irish Water off the national balance sheet has backfired badly. It is this party's position that it is time to suspend water charges and abolish Irish Water.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Marcella Corcoran Kennedy)

I remind the Deputy that we are on the Civil Debt (Procedures) Bill 2015.

Deputy Niall Collins

Yes. We see in this legislation a measure being hailed as reform by the Minister but it is a Trojan horse, providing another legal support to prevent the collapse of Irish Water.

The programme for Government of Fine Gael and Labour states that they will endeavour to enact legislation to "end the practice of imprisoning people who cannot pay fines and debts and introduce a system which takes a small amount of money from wages or social welfare by 'attachment order' to pay off a fine or debt over time, as an alternative to imprisonment for people who refuse to pay".

This is a laudable commitment and one my party can certainly support. As we are all aware, Article 1 of Protocol No. 4 to the European Convention on Human Rights provides, "No one shall be deprived of his liberty merely on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation". It has been outlined that this fundamental right is additionally protected by Article 11 of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states, "No one shall be imprisoned merely on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation". Both statements are quite clear in their impact, and the logical conclusion chimes with the Law Reform Commission's report in this area. The recommendations most relevant to the provisions contained in the Civil Debt (Procedures) Bill 2015 include that a mechanism for the attachment of earnings be introduced for the enforcement of all judgment debts against individuals receiving regular income subject to the debtor having sufficient means to maintain a reasonable standard of living, and procedures for the imprisonment of debtors for failure to repay a judgment debt should be abolished subject to the implementation of the Law Reform Commission's other recommendations on the efficiency of the enforcement system.

In 2009, the Free Legal Advice Centres reported in its document, To No one's Credit, that Ireland's compliance with these international obligations had come to the attention of the UN Human Rights Committee on more than one occasion as a result of the failure to legislate to prevent individuals' liberties being taken away due to the failure to pay fines. None the less, let us not be naive about the situation in which many judges find themselves. It is often the case that judges have little option other than imprisonment for certain individuals who have a long string of more serious offences along with non-payment of fines. In these situations the statistics can be misleading as it may appear their incarceration arose from non-payment when the story is much more complex.

It was shown in the Irish Prison Service's annual report for 2014 that the number of debtors committed to prison as a consequence of the non-payment of a debt during 2014 was 23, with 22 male and one female. This should be distinguished from the numbers committed for failure to pay a court-ordered fine, which increased by 10.6% on the 2013 figure, from 8,121 in 2013 to 8,979 in 2014. Of this, 2,334 were female while 6,645 were male.

The failure to pay a court fine is as a result of a previous offence being committed. The failure to pay a debt is not. This is an important distinction. Will the Minister clarify how the legislation still permits the imprisonment of debtors who have the means to pay but who refuse or neglect to obey a court order in respect of debt? I understand the maximum committal period under the proposals is six weeks. In any case, I welcome the changes surrounding the reduction in the options of imprisonment in the Bill as, frankly, it makes sense.

As part of the legislation mentioned, the Government announced in May that households which refused to pay Irish Water bills would be pursued through the courts with attachment orders being placed on their earnings or social welfare benefits. This measure was announced in light of the increasing expectation that a large percentage of households will refuse to pay their Irish Water bills. We still do not have any statistics in this regard and Irish Water still refuses to state how many households remain liable for outstanding bills issued to them. It is important when discussing the Bill that the Minister should outline to the House how many people may be liable specifically for Irish Water bills under this legislation when it is commenced.

More than 1.7 million bills totalling €70 million have been sent to households since May. Irish Water will submit bills to the tune of €271 million over the next year. A significant number of people have been billed but we do not know what will be the compliance rate. The secrecy surrounding the Irish Water project has brought Government policy into significant disrepute. It has also seen a colossal waste of money occur in the establishment of Irish Water and in the installation of water meters. A total of €540 million is rotting in the ground thanks to the Government. This is one of the great legacies of Fine Gael and the Labour Party in office.

The Bill relates directly to gross mismanagement in the creation and implementation of the Irish Water system, which has been Fine Gael policy since 2009. It is unfortunate the Government has seen fit to defend its policy positions by referring to the Law Reform Commission's report when defending the more significant debt mechanism which is directly inspired by the Irish Water crisis. This is a cowardly approach from the Government and one which will not wash with the public.

I urge the Minister to consider the further enhancement of the Money Advice & Budgeting Service which has a strong track record of supporting families in financial distress. Any expansion of its role is welcome. Fianna Fáil has consistently called for the establishment of a system of State and creditor-funded insolvency practitioners. These would take on cases where the debtor's payment capacity is so impaired that existing personal insolvency practitioners are unwilling or unable to do so. This system could be extended to the debt proceedings being proposed in the Bill. This could make a dramatic impact on those most vulnerable in our society who face difficulty with their debts and I hope this will be considered.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

It is time for the Government to stop what is to my mind a charade, and I am not going to stand here for the next ten minutes and ignore the real reason behind the Bill. The Minister and I both know the Government's interest in this Bill is to give what I can only describe as bully-boy power to Irish Water. It is that plain and it is that simple. Although the Government may seek to justify this ruthless legislation by claiming the reforms have come off the back of recommendations from the Law Reform Commission, it does not take a genius to figure out the only reason the Government is seeking to push through this legislation at this point is to give tyrannical power to the shambles that is Irish Water.

This Bill goes hand in hand with the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill that was rushed through the Chamber without proper scrutiny earlier this week. The Government is clearly desperate to deal with the Irish Water mess before the recess in order that come the autumn, Irish Water is not the subject of Dáil debate before a possible general election. My answer to that is "dream on".

A draft copy of the Bill was only sent to Deputies last Friday. This draft was changed by the beginning of the week without a note explaining the reasoning behind the changes or the effects of such. This is, yet again, another example of the Government showing disregard for how democratic business should be carried out in this institution.

It goes without saying Sinn Féin does not support the primary objective of the Bill. While we welcome the abolition of imprisonment for debtors who cannot pay, the other provisions are Thatcher-like. The Bill reads like a stereotypical school canteen bully sketch. It conjures up the image of a big bully boy coming along and turning a smaller child upside down to shake every last cent of lunch money from his or her pocket. With these proposals, the Government is helping creditors, including large utility companies and multinationals, to empty the pockets of citizens through aggressive and adversarial methods before the courts.

The legislation, effectively, has two purposes. The first is to allow creditors, including Irish Water, to apply to court for an order enabling an attachment of earnings or deductions from social welfare payments for the purpose of the enforcement of debt. This will disproportionately target those on low pay and persons in receipt of social welfare payments. It is important to be absolutely clear on this matter. Sinn Féin in government post the general election will abolish Irish Water; there are no ifs or buts about this. In regard to other civil debts, although the Government offers the vague assurance that an attachment of earnings and deductions from social welfare payments are merely options to be used by creditors if they so decide, there is no requirement that a creditor first exhaust other avenues before resorting to the courts. That is procedurally unsound. Adversarial proceedings should not be available as a first option in such scenarios.

The process as outlined in the Bill means that a creditor will first have to obtain a judgment against a debtor in respect of a debt and may then make an application to the District Court for an attachment of earnings order or deductions from payments where the judgment concerned is for a liquidated sum of not less than €500 and not greater than €4,000. The debtor will then have to furnish the court with a statement of means and dependant and liability information in order for it to determine the protected earning rate of the debtor. Preparation of a statement of means is an obvious burden for debtors. On top of the worry of such debt, it is unreasonable to impose on debtors the further burden of producing such a detailed document for the court. The possibility of the details provided being inaccurate as a result of the sheer volume of information sought is high. The provision of misinformation would, through no fault of the debtor, undermine the protected earning rate to be determined by the court. Furthermore, the protected earning rate safeguard is inadequate. The bottom line is that the Bill creates a situation where companies can use the courts to take money from the pockets of people who, in the grand scheme of things, owe a relatively small debt. Whatever little safety net a debtor and his or her family may have to rely on after liabilities are accounted for will be taken from under them.

In regard to the €500 minimum debt in respect of which an attachment of earnings order can be made, an unpaid water charge debt would take only two years to accumulate to this amount. Such debtors will be dragged before a judge with no recourse to appeal. How does this differentiate, as the Government claims it does, between those who cannot pay and those who will not pay? What is being proposed amounts to intimidation by the Government. It is galling, as is the cynicism of the Administration in general. If the Minister and her colleagues are serious about protecting those facing fines and debts from imprisonment for non-repayment, why, more than one year since it was passed, has the Fines (Payment and Recovery) Bill not been enacted? Surely that is the appropriate vehicle to address matters that are a part of the intent of the Bill before us?

Attachment of earnings orders, as a permissible first resort for creditors, are a very severe way to deal with issues that have alternative resolutions. Has any consideration been given to how they will impact on employer-employee relations? Strong two-way employment relationships should be encouraged. Instead, the Bill is placing an unfair onus on the employer to do the dirty work of the creditor companies, including Irish Water, and the courts. This will damage employment relationships and is an extra burden employers definitely do not need.

Sinn Féin does support the second purpose of the Bill. We agree with the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission to provide for the abolition of imprisonment of debtors except in the case of maintenance arising from family law. That is in line with international best practice and human rights. However, the sneaky inclusion of this provision in one section at the very end of the Bill is cynical. Moreover, to disguise the entire Bill as a step forward in dealing with civil debt in a modern way is despicable and far from laudable. That has, however, been the approach of the Government from the start. We have seen legislation rushed through, debate guillotined and sections slipped into Bills here, there and everywhere. We have had ample evidence of this during the past four days of sittings.

Sinn Féin does not support the Bill as presented and will be submitting amendments on Committee Stage. The legislation must be amended to delete all sections which advocate a flawed adversarial approach to the recovery of debt. That is not the way forward. The only provisions of merit in the entire Bill are those which abolish the imprisonment of debtors. The rest of it misses the bigger picture. To allow companies, including Irish Water, to use bully tactics to recover debt is unnecessary and ruthless and, moreover, is out of line with the direction in which legal resolutions are heading. There is plenty of evidence to show that the courts, for the most part, are heading down a path of mediation and dispute resolution. To allow creditors to use the courts as a first option in the way the Bill proposes undermines the direction the courts are taking. It is not an acceptable way for this or any Government to deal with the issue of the unjust and unfair water tax, which is what the legislation is really all about. The answer to that problem is to abolish water charges. We in Sinn Féin will absolutely stand over our commitment to do so, if given the opportunity by voters. They will soon have their chance to pass judgment on the Government's record in recent years.

Deputy Sandra McLellan

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. Copies of the Civil Debt (Procedures) Bill 2015 were issued to Members in draft form last Friday afternoon and we were informed last Monday that it was to be debated this week. That is an inadequate amount of time in which to analyse the proposals fairly. The Minister, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, has indicated that the new options provided for in the Bill will be primarily of use to small businesses, tradespeople and the self-employed in seeking to recover debts from those who can afford to pay but will not do so. There is no reference from the other side of the House to the implications of these provisions for utility companies such as Irish Water. In truth, this legislation is an underhand attempt to give Irish Water power to bully debtors. The Government may claim its provisions are open to all creditors to use, but, in fact, these proposals are part of a wider Fine Gael-Labour Party agenda to continue pushing water charges legislation through the House.

As my colleague, Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin, noted, the Bill will do two things. The first is to allow creditors, including Irish Water and other utility companies and multinationals, to apply to the court for an order enabling an attachment of earnings or deductions from social welfare payments for the purpose of the enforcement of a debt of between €500 and €4,000.

This will clearly affect low-income households and people who cannot afford to pay the debt. In the case of a debt as small as €500 it is likely that the debtor cannot afford to pay, which tells us much about who the Bill targets.

The introduction of an option of making attachment orders will also attack those on low pay and social welfare most. There is no provision that requires creditors to resolve the issue outside of adversarial court proceedings, nor does the Bill provide a means of appealing an attachment order. While an order can be varied, it cannot be appealed on the grounds that is unfair or unjust, which clearly favours creditors and limits debtors' rights.

The minimum amount for which a creditor may take a case to court is a debt of €500. Given the Government's commitment to water charges and the increased arrears that will inevitably accrue to those with unpaid water bills, it will take only two years for the outstanding payment to reach the €500 threshold. This will have a serious impact on households in which €500 amounts to a large proportion of income and create considerable stress. While the sums in question may not be significant for many of the Members present, I assure the House that, for the majority of the constituents I meet every week, they are the difference between paying the rent, filling a petrol tank to bring children to school and putting food on the table.

The day-to-day realities of struggling families are acutely real and I find it scandalous, as do many of my colleagues on this side of the House, that the Labour Party chooses to play down the hardship being imposed on already struggling citizens and families. The party is making the wrong choices by implementing measures such as those provided for in this Bill.

The statement of means to be provided by a debtor is a burden given the volume of information required. How many hard-pressed households will be in a position to provide this information? This requirement will come at a cost to such families.

The protected earnings rate is not by any means a sufficiently strong safeguard as it does not take account of any small income surplus a family and people in receipt of social welfare payments will need as a safety net to survive.

The provision of sufficient water and sanitation is an essential public service and a human right recognised by the United Nations. It should be freely available to all regardless of wealth or income. All citizens need clean drinking water and quality sanitation. Sinn Féin is with all those who are calling on the Government to recognise and legislate for access to water as a human right, rather than imposing crippling sanctions on those who cannot afford to pay, as is provided for in the Bill.

Water charges will discriminate against working people and the unemployed. They are a regressive tax dressed up as an effort to improve the water system. It is abundantly clear that this is not the purpose of water charges. The public water system is paid for through a progressive system of general taxation and that should continue to be the position. The Government has given a temporary commitment to provide a free annual allowance of 30,000 litres of water, with a further free annual allowance of 38,000 litres per child. These allowances, which are insufficient in any case, will almost certainly be reduced in the years ahead. Given that a typical shower uses approximately 80 litres of water, a person who showers once per day will use his or her entire annual allowance before using any water to drink, wash dishes and clothes or flush toilets.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Marcella Corcoran Kennedy)

I remind the Deputy that the House is discussing the Civil Debt (Procedures) Bill.

Deputy Sandra McLellan

All the points I am raising are relevant.

While the expected average water bill per household will be €240 per year in 2015, this figure is expected to increase over time. As with bin charges, there is no doubt that water charges will increase every year. As has been noted elsewhere, Irish Water will ultimately be sold off as a State asset making it a for-profit essential service, as has occurred in many other countries.

Water conservation is not the real reason for the introduction of water charges. If the Government was genuinely concerned about the conservation of water, it would invest in fixing and upgrading water infrastructure. The real reason for water charges is to turn an essential service into a profit-making commodity.

In his previous role as Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government and chief aide to the Taoiseach, the current European Commissioner for Agriculture, Mr. Phil Hogan, publicly stated:

Everybody will pay based on water usage. For people who do not pay, their water pressure will be turned down to a trickle for basic human reasons and that won't be too attractive for them.

Once water supply falls into the hands of corporations or for-profit enterprises, the obvious next step is to cut or eradicate all allowances or credits, leading to increasing prices and deteriorating services. The privatisation of industries such as waste management provides clear evidence of what happens when corporations take control of public services. Water charges will increase in the coming years as a result of the introduction of economic charging, as the Government itself has admitted. With poverty and deprivation rates approaching an all-time high, the homelessness crisis growing and households in mortgage arrears across the State, the introduction of water charges will tip many people over the edge.

Low income families who cannot pay their bills will suffer most and are most at risk. Does the Government not realise the financial and psychological effects increasing debts will have? It is particularly disturbing to see the Labour Party weigh in so forcefully behind proposals to implement further measures that will attack the lives of the most vulnerable. We have only recently witnessed ambivalence and ignorance being shown when calls were made to halt cuts in the one-parent family payment which will affect 12,000 families.

This Bill is yet another measure in the long line of draconian proposals presented by this Government. Its consequences, it is argued, are the result of bad and irresponsible personal choices. A person who chooses not to pay the charge will be found and penalised, while anyone who chooses not to get a job will have his or her payments cut. It is as if the struggles people are facing to survive were about choice.

As Sinn Féin's spokesperson on children and youth affairs, it is my duty to point out the obvious and uncomfortable point the Government does not want to acknowledge. It is continuing to impact on the lives of children in low income families with its resolute commitment to austerity and decisions and choices it has made, including in this Bill. It is hindering the lives of those who are experiencing hardship by continuing a never-ending cycle of poverty creation. We live in a society in which the shameful reality is that 138,000 children are living in persistent poverty, 1,000 minors are living in emergency accommodation and the housing crisis is worsening daily. Between 2008 and 2013, the number of children living both at risk of poverty and in consistent poverty jumped from 6% to 12%. This means one in eight children is experiencing material deprivation on a daily basis. In addition, 63% of one-parent families are living without basic necessities, one-parent families are at heightened risk of homelessness and 60% of households seeking urgent housing assistance are one-parent families. This is the context in which the Government, including the Tánaiste and leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Joan Burton, wishes to introduce savage cuts to payments for one-parent families and in which we are being told that financially strapped citizens and families must pay water charge debts.

On the one hand, we have the imposition of cuts, while, on the other, we have the imposition of debts. In only one week, we have seen the culmination of two incredibly short-sighted dangerous decisions from a child poverty perspective. It is irresponsible of the Government to implement these decisions as it does not require a genius to figure out where the equation, cuts plus debts, leads us. We are told the cuts are being introduced to encourage lone parents to enter employment or education. Almost 12,000 parents, many of them already in employment, will lose up to €86 per week under the cuts to the one-parent family payment.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Marcella Corcoran Kennedy)

The Deputy must confine her remarks to the contents of the Bill.

Deputy Sandra McLellan

I am aware of that. The issues I am raising go hand in hand with the Bill.

The Government has targets in place to reduce child poverty. The National Policy Framework for Children and Young People 2014-2020, Better Outcomes, Brighter Futures, commits it to lifting more than 70,000 children out of consistent poverty by 2020, which would constitute a reduction of at least two thirds on the 2011 level.

Despite this, rates of child poverty have risen sharply in recent years, particularly for poor children in one-parent families. While the Department of Social Protection is moving parents onto payments that will cut their incomes, another section is working to lower child poverty rates. You could not make it up.

The Minister for Social Protection recently attacked Sinn Féin during the debate on our opposition to those cuts. The Minister claimed our party did not have any policies. What kind of policy is it to promise that affordable child care and after-school care would be made available to families, and then do little to nothing to implement that promise while steamrolling ahead with said cuts? We live in a society that has some of the highest child care costs, second only to those in the United States. Already 9,000 lone parents have lost their payment. These changes arrive without the delivery of the Minister's promised Scandinavian child care system. Last month we heard the Labour Party, quite rightly, calling for equality and for fairness, yet when it comes to fairness and equality for children, many of them already experiencing poverty or deprivation, that call rings hollow.

The added burden of the repayment of water charges debt, as outlined in the proposed measures in this Bill, follows the long line of previous measures aimed at the people who can afford the least. The cuts in rent allowance and back-to-school allowance and the loss of the Christmas bonus precede today. On the Minister's watch we have also witnessed cuts to community employment schemes and student third level grants.

Working part time for many parents was an option which allowed them to parent their children while avoiding child care costs by working while their children were in school. This is no longer the case for many. As special rapporteur for the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children's committee on child care, I am acutely aware of the lack of affordable, quality child care in this State. One of the big problems for all parents, but most especially lone parents, is this issue. For a person parenting alone, there is just one income available to meet all household, accommodation and child care costs. It explains why so many one-parent families are merely surviving and face the constant threat and fear of homelessness. Most families in emergency accommodation today are one-parent families. Without affordable, quality child care and out-of-school care, the cuts in the one-parent family payment will force those families into further crisis. That we have the shameful figure of 138,000 children living in consistent poverty is evidence that child poverty reduction targets are not working. Measures such as these cuts are not working.

There are more than 215,000 one-parent families in Ireland today of varying backgrounds and circumstances. As One Family has correctly stated, men and women can become lone parents because of separation, divorce or abandonment. Many may have experienced domestic violence, abuse and bereavement and, as I have pointed out, years of cuts have led to one-parent families being those with the highest levels of consistent poverty, with 63% of individuals from these households experiencing one or more forms of deprivation.

One Family also rightly highlighted the critical fact that although the Government's supposed reform process is to connect parents to the labour market and to move them from a passive reliance on social welfare to independence, the reality is that many will have to give up their part-time jobs as they will lose money due to different criteria on their new payment. This will inevitably cause thousands of children to live in deeper levels of poverty.

Since 2008, just before the economic crash, 6.8% of Irish children were living in consistent poverty, a shameful figure in itself. By 2013, that proportion had almost doubled to 11.7%. As some have commented, that adds up to Galway city plus an entire Limerick city of poor children. It is unbelievable and horrific.

Studies have shown that taking a child out of poverty is the single most productive investment a government can make, saving at least seven times what it costs. Child poverty has doubled on the watch of the Government and it is a national scandal, nothing less. The Government has an official target of reducing consistent poverty among children by two thirds by 2020, but what do the current numbers tell us? The child poverty reduction measures are failing. It is time to think again. It is time to rethink the political choices being made. If Government is in any way authentic or serious about reducing this shameful figure of children living in consistent poverty in this State, it should reconsider immediately the measures being introduced in the Civil Debt (Procedures) Bill 2015 before us. Sinn Féin will not support this Bill and will bring forward amendments on Committee Stage.

Deputy Ruth Coppinger

Anyone would welcome the fact the Minister for Justice and Equality has abolished imprisonment of people for relatively small debts. People should never have gone to prison for not being able to pay a television licence. There was the ridiculous case last year of a woman from Donegal driven to Dublin in a taxi to be jailed in Dublin. This debate is not being held on a normal sitting day. The Bill is focused on the debts of the little people, €500 to €4,000. When will the Government bring forward a Bill to deal with the debts of the big people? Do they just get write-downs, for example, the developers in the National Asset Management Agency, which the previous regime told us would never happen? Denis O’Brien and others in the 1% also get write-downs from banks and Government.

This Bill has been talked about for many years. It has been brought forward to coincide with a mass boycott of the water charges. It will not and cannot deal with a mass boycott campaign. It cannot deal with hundreds of thousands of people refusing on principle to pay a debt and it will not deal with that. The Government hopes the publicity will be enough to give the impression it will, but it is to be hoped the real message will get out. The Minister was somewhat disingenuous in her speech when she referred to the water charges being at quite an early stage because the debt has to be more than €500 and up to €4,000. That would mean it would be at least three years before a single person could be brought to court to have an attachment order granted for non-payment of water charges. For a family it would be more than two years. The earliest anyone could be caught under this Bill for boycotting water charges would be between 2017 and 2019, well after a general election when a new Government will be in place. It is to be hoped water charges will have been abolished at that stage if the campaign is successful.

The Bill makes clear too that water charges cannot be deducted at source. I am glad that possibility is being nailed on the head. They cannot be taken directly from people’s incomes and social welfare. There must be a court process first and every case must be individually heard. A person is entitled to have representations made and his or her finances must be examined and an assessment of affordability must be made. Hundreds of thousands of people are boycotting the water charges. Some day soon we will get the figures. We do not have them yet but we know it has to be hundreds of thousands, on the basis that 30% have not registered and many more who have registered will not pay. They do this as a protest against privatisation, austerity and a political betrayal and broken promise, in particular by the Labour Party. The process set out in this Bill is very clunky. There is no fast-tracking of water charges cases as has been reported in the media. There will be no way to segregate and streamline people and bring them to court. Solicitors have been sending us e-mails and complaints saying there is no way they can deal with this issue. Every case has to be heard in court before an attachment order can be granted. There is no guarantee it will be granted. A judge has discretion to distinguish and not impose an attachment order.

Under section 9, representations can be made and there is a protected earnings rate. The Minister assures us the proposals provide that the debtor’s situation must be assessed by the court deciding on enforceability in order that the attachment of earnings or deduction from social welfare cannot cause him or her undue hardship or encroach on basic income sustainability to ensure basic living costs can still be met by the debtor. I hope this will come to pass. We know the Government has a very stringent interpretation of what people can live on because it decreed this week that people can lose €50, €80 and €100 a week without causing undue hardship. Women in particular will feel this because 96% of lone parents are women.

Every single case involving people taking part in a massive campaign to boycott water charges must be heard; all of their finances must be looked at and they can also appeal. This will be an extremely long drawn out process. There is, therefore, no way that this instrument can deal with a mass campaign of non-payment.

I wish to correct something that was said by a previous speaker. There are no longer water allowances; they were done away with. We now have a flat-rate water charge and water pressure cannot be reduced. It is important that, as Deputies, we give people the correct information. This measure was done away with under pressure of the campaign. As a result, a millionaire will pay the same amount in water charges as a low paid worker, but how can this be just or fair? As a result of fear and the knowledge that people knew that the campaign was going to escalate, the Government had to bring in that measure. However, those engaging in a campaign against water charges have nothing to fear from this legislation, as mass non-payment can sink Irish Water and force a future Government to abolish it.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Marcella Corcoran Kennedy)

I remind the Deputy that we are dealing with the Civil Debt (Procedures) Bill 2015.

Deputy Ruth Coppinger

It will render the process set out in the Bill inoperable. There is no way hundreds of thousands of people - 500,000 or more - can be brought to court, as the courts would not be able to cope. It would be at least two to three years before anybody would face it. There will be a mass campaign that will bring down Irish Water and this Bill certainly will not deal with those boycotting the charges.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

The Law Reform Commission presented its proposals on this issue in 2010, long before Irish Water was even conceived and before the last general election. What was proposed was not the same as that being presented which is being presented in tandem with other legislation this week to create a connection between the two.

I am in favour of jailing people who are a threat to society. There must be sanctions, but where people are not a threat to society, they should not be in prison. There are people who are a threat to society for whom there are no sanctions. Maintaining prisons is very expensive. The Irish Penal Reform Trust calculated that the average cost of an available staffed prison space in 2014 was €69,000. It is, therefore, a very expensive option, particularly when one is looking at relatively small personal debts such as a television licence fee. Deputy Ruth Coppinger reminded us of the case last year of a woman in County Donegal who had to abandon her children and have them minded when she was sent to prison. I think they were minded by a social worker, which added to the cost. The woman in question had to be driven by taxi to the Dóchas Centre because of a failure to pay her television licence fee. People were outraged by this. It was not that they were saying there should be no sanction but that the sanction was not balanced, correct or civilised.

We see individuals who have done untold damage to this society and directly damaged people's lives, the economy and available public services and who are walking away scot free because of the lack of the sanctions we need at the other end of the scale. Where there are sanctions provided for, one wonders about the ability to enforce them. Look at the number of staff in the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement or the Competition Authority. Significant white collar crimes are not being prosecuted. I tried to make a complaint about possible insider trading. I wrote to the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, the Central Bank and the Irish Stock Exchange, but it seems that none of them was required to sanction or even consider what was I saying and we wonder why there has never been a prosecution for insider trading. Effectively, there is no one to whom one can complain. This demonstrates very clearly that there are two sets of rules.

We know that the courts are unable to cope. Funding for the Courts Service has been cut by 25% since 2008. The service has shed about 160 staff and case loads are enormous. I know that there have been some changes and that we now have a Court of Appeal, but the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Mrs. Justice Susan Denham, said last year that any further cut would do great and lasting harm to the administration of justice. It is one thing to cut the budgets and ability of the courts to deal with things, but it is another to put through a significant number of additional cases. That is where Irish Water enters the picture. When the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government spoke about the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2015 this week, he said:

In tandem with these amendments, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Fitzgerald, published the Civil Debt (Procedures) Bill yesterday. The Bill seeks to implement the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission's report on the enforcement of debt, principally around the streamlining of existing enforcement procedures. Under the Bill, creditors will be able to apply to the court for an order enabling either attachment of earnings or deductions from social welfare payments, as appropriate, for the purpose of enforcement of debt. This important change will be accompanied by a crucial safeguard: the abolition of imprisonment of debtors, except in the case of maintenance arising from family law proceedings. This, I believe, represents a balanced approach to the recovery of civil debt so that creditor rights are protected with a range of legal mechanisms which compel payment by those debtors who will not pay, while removing the outdated threat of imprisonment in such cases. The legislation supports the distinction between the "can pay but won't pay" debtors and those who are willing to pay but are in financial difficulty, a distinction that is crucial in implementing the underlying fairness aspect of domestic water charges.

It is clearly linking it with Irish Water. In many ways, it is giving the impression that there is an immediate sanction through this Bill that bypasses the courts when that is not the case. A Government that does not command the authority of citizens does not have the right to govern. The Government will tell us otherwise, but a significant campaign of civil disobedience is taking place in respect of Irish Water. This is not the way to deal with it. Something has been said about the limits to which people have been pushed. Even though there are good elements in this legislation, I cannot see myself being in a position to support it because of the link with Irish Water that it creates.

I want to raise the issue of orders attached to social welfare payments.

I recall a constituent who came to my office who wanted to pay the household charge but did not have a credit card. He was trying to find the cheapest way to pay and wanted to pay through the post office. However, he found if he paid it on a monthly basis through the post office, it would cost him an extra €12 because of the €1 fee for each transaction. He thought then that he would go to the Department of Social Protection and ask it to deduct the charge. The Department's response was that the customer should note that the Department would apply provisions under social welfare legislation to ensure a person's basic means are sufficient and would not, therefore, make deductions that would bring a payment below the personal rate of supplementary welfare allowance, currently set at €186 per week. Therefore, the Department would not deduct the household charge because that would reduce his payment to below €186 per week, yet an attachment order can be made in regard to an Irish Water debt. Is there a paradox there? The Departments seem to be tripping each other up on this point, that there is a requirement for a basic income.

We need to get real on whether a basic income is needed and guaranteed and this must be factored into the legislation as a certainty. A similar situation occurs in regard to maintenance payments where the payment can be deducted from a welfare payment or where there is a requirement to pay it that brings people below the bare minimum required for existence. These issues are very real for people living in a marginal situation and they have not been properly thought through.

On the campaign of civil disobedience in regard to the water charges, I have said on numerous occasions that what is going on in regard to Irish Water-----

Acting Chairman (Deputy Marcella Corcoran Kennedy)

I remind the Deputy we are on the Civil Debt (Procedures) Bill and matters involved.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

This is connected to it. The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Alan Kelly, made sure it was connected to it.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Marcella Corcoran Kennedy)

To clarify for the Deputy, we are not discussing what is connected to the Bill but what is in the Bill and what is relevant to be included in it.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Absolutely, I know that. The campaign of civil disobedience is about more than water. It is about concerns about not having enough money to live on and about being pushed too far. We have seen what the credit unions have to say about the level of disposable monthly income. This must be factored in when considering the debt issue. The Government may not want to be seen to backtrack because it has invested so much in Irish Water. Essentially, to backtrack would be about losing face in advance of a general election. It is linking these issues together although they should not be linked. While there are positive proposals in this legislation, the Government has undermined it by creating this connection.

Deputy Mick Wallace

I agree with Deputy Murphy that the fewer people we have in prison, the better. There are many good reasons for keeping people out of prison, if possible. Most people accept that prisons do not really work and that putting people in prison because they have not paid a fine of one sort or another makes little sense.

The Government says it is trying to differentiate between those who can pay, but will not pay. That is a hard call to make. Most people who cannot pay might find themselves thrown into the category of being among the people who will not pay. It is difficult for any of us to determine, and for whoever must make that decision it will be very challenging to get it right all the time. The draconian aspect of this Bill is the fact that money will be taken from people eventually, after a court process and after the amount owing has reached a certain amount. That money will be taken from people who are already struggling and in a difficult position.

I suggest we should use the community service element more, although I know it would not be easy to set this up and that it would require significant work. This idea is used a lot more in other countries and I believe it has significant merit. If money is taken from people who genuinely cannot afford to pay bills, they may find themselves cutting down on what they provide for their children in some way. Children will suffer if money is taken from these families. Community service would be a much fairer system to deal with non-payment of money owed.

We kind of accept the fact that water is a human right. If it is a human right, how can a state force people to pay for it? It has been pointed out that structures whereby people pay directly for water are in place in many countries, but many of the things in place in many countries are not necessarily in place here. We do not accept that philosophy. For example, we often point out that rent control is prominent in many parts of the world but there is no appetite for it here. When we point out it works in other places, that still cuts no ice here.

It is not as if water has never been paid for through our taxation system. Of course it has. We have had water and wastewater infrastructure in place and this has been paid for through central taxation, so obviously the people pay for the water services indirectly. I believe this is a fair way of providing water services. In Piedmont in Italy, there is a charge for water, but the cost is not high. There, the state controls the system at local level. I have seen how it works there. I have seen the tanks in the mountains, seen how the water is gathered there and delivered. I have seen how it is measured and how the money is collected.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Marcella Corcoran Kennedy)

I must remind the Deputy that we are on the Civil Debt (Procedures) Bill 2015, what is in it and what of relevance could be included in it.

Deputy Mick Wallace

I thank the Chair for her guidance. I will keep it in mind.

How Irish Water has been structured is very disappointing and to use this Bill as a way to get money from the people to pay Irish Water for its services leaves a bad taste in the mouth because of the nature of Irish Water and the flaws in its structure to date.

It is hardly surprising that there is such civic resistance to money going to the organisation and it is not going to go away. Although many such issues settle down eventually, this one will not. Whoever is in government after the general election will face many problems with it and anything connected with Irish Water will remain poisoned. Every time people are dragged through the courts to have money for water bills extracted from them, it will create a bad atmosphere and major unrest.

Sometimes I try to put myself in the positions of the Ministers who are trying to make decisions in these areas and I only look stupid. It is difficult to make calls and come up with the right answers. Having to come up with the answers and make the right decisions is very challenging. If I were Taoiseach, I would say to myself that Irish Water had been a disaster and that we had spent a lot of money, but that although doing a U-turn would go down badly, going ahead with it would not be good either. Although it would be a difficult decision to make, the Government should scrap Irish Water. Introducing a system whereby we supplied water through the local authorities again, or on a regional basis rather than county by county, or a system like the one that functions in Italy would be a good decision.

Regarding the Bill, we need to seriously consider the idea of a community service structure. For a person who has a €100,000 car and likes to speed on the motorway, paying fines is not very troublesome. I would like such a person to do community service rather than pay a fine. Community service is very educational. I have had the privilege of doing it and learned much from the experience. I learned things about myself, which was very interesting.

Deputy Frances Fitzgerald

It is always good.

Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin

This is a very therapeutic session.

Deputy Frances Fitzgerald

I am glad that the Deputy gained an insight.

Deputy Mick Wallace

Community service is therapeutic, good for the State, has a very strong punitive effect, is a humbling experience and saves the State a fortune. The cost of keeping a person in prison is outrageous at €1,700 per week. It is mad. All of the research shows prisons do not work. I had a script which I was going to present. It was pretty good and I compliment Rachel Ann Hynes in my office who helped me to put it together and did such a good job on it, but I will have to keep it for another day.

Dáil Éireann debate - Friday, 3 Jul 2015

Civil Debt (Procedures) Bill 2015: Second Stage

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 3 Jul 2015